Source
https://www.earthsong.org.nz/resources/documents — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Waitakere Eco-Neighbourhood Cohousing Project — Design Brief (6 August 1999)
Earthsong's original resident-consensus DESIGN INTENT — the pre-build 'target' behind the measured outcomes
The 1999 design brief of the community that became Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood (Ranui, West Auckland), compiled by the group over four weekends of consensing. Sets the community’s own design targets — a 400 m² common house for 28–30 units, solar water heaters as standard, rainwater collection and greywater recycling, passive-solar buildings to a BRANZ ‘Excellent’ rating, permaculture site design, and an “aim towards zero waste”. ⚠ These are aspirational 1999 targets, not built outcomes — read alongside the measured Earthsong sources (water OT_092, waste OT_094, materials OT_093, energy INT_006, capital cost OT_098), several targets scaled back at build. Read verbatim (pdftotext -layout). data_quality high (primary intent doc; not a measured-outcome source).
Summary
The Design Brief is the founding design-intent document of the Waitakere Eco-Neighbourhood Cohousing Project — the resident group that went on to build Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood in Ranui, West Auckland. Dated 6 August 1999 and compiled by the group over four weekends of brainstorming and consensing (May–July 1999), it opens with a vision statement — “to establish a cohousing neighbourhood based on the principles of permaculture, that will serve as a model of a socially and environmentally sustainable community” — and is then divided into three sections: Site, Common House and Private Units. It records the community’s own design targets: a car-to-periphery, pedestrian-dominated layout of 28–30 clustered units on the back 80–85% of the site; solar water heaters as standard, rainwater collection, on-site greywater (and, “if possible”, blackwater/compost-toilet) treatment, on-site stormwater management and an “aim towards zero waste”; all buildings passive-solar and designed to a BRANZ Green Home Scheme ‘Excellent’ rating; a 400 m² common house; and a mix of studio-to-3-bedroom units (30–125 m²). Because it predates construction, its value is twofold: it is the documented design intent against which the measured-outcome Earthsong sources (OT_092, OT_093, OT_094, OT_098, Interview VI [INT_006]) can be read for intent-vs-outcome, and it supplies community-buildings and dwelling sizing targets for the NI model (RT_327). Several of its ambitions (on-site blackwater treatment / compost toilets, full rainwater self-sufficiency, PV) were later scaled back or dropped — so it is design ambition, not achieved capability.
Key claims
- claim: "Vision and sustainability design principles: 'Our vision is to establish a cohousing neighbourhood based on the principles of permaculture, that will serve as a model of a socially and environmentally sustainable community.' Under 'Environmental and Economic Good Sense' the group set the targets: all buildings 'oriented and designed for energy efficiency and natural climate control using passive solar design'; 'All buildings to achieve an [Excellent] rating under the BRANZ Green Home Scheme'; 'To optimise solar exposure to buildings and outdoor living and productive areas'; 'To trial, monitor and demonstrate sustainable technologies and methods'; 'Comprehensive site design based on Permaculture principles to include productive landscaping and organic gardening'; 'To grow some food on site'."
source_location: "Vision Statement + Overall Site Goals, 'Environmental and Economic Good Sense', p.1"
- claim: "Services design targets (aspirational — 'Where possible and affordable, green ideas are to be considered first before standard ideas'): 'Rainwater collection for household and garden use'; 'Solar water heaters will come as standard to provide the bulk of hot water needs'; 'To incorporate other renewable energy technology where appropriate'; 'To minimise paved and/or impermeable surface'; 'On-site storm-water management'; 'On-site grey water treatment and recycling'; 'On-site black-water treatment or compost toilets, if possible'; a recycling centre for metals, glass, plastics and paper; 'To aim towards zero waste'."
source_location: "Site — 'SERVICES', p.2"
- claim: "Site layout and parking targets: 'A total of 28—30 units on the back 80—85% of the site', with 'Clustered buildings to free up open space with 4-7 units attached at the sides' (party walls, per Private Units p.15); the front 15–20% of site 'left aside for now, for some later but ethically compatible use'. Interior 'pedestrian dominated' but pathways designed to accommodate fire and furniture trucks; carparks at the site periphery, 'Approximately 2 car parks per household, including visitor parks', total projected requirement '45 carparks + 15 carports = 60 total'."
source_location: "Wider Neighbourhood Interface p.2 (front 15–20%); Layout p.3 (28–30 units, 4–7 clustered); Carparks p.4 (60 total); Combinations of Units p.15 (party walls)"
- claim: "Common house sizing target: 'We are budgeting for a 400 square metre common house, to include all the facilities prioritised below (except the games room…) plus shared office space if possible.' Generally single-level with the possibility of some rooms upstairs. The room schedule prioritises (in order) a domestic — 'Not a commercial kitchen' — kitchen (guideline 5 m × 4 m, 3 cooks, 6 stove elements, 'consider bottled gas'), dining/sitting for 'Up to 60 for special events', lobby, 2–3 toilets, verandahs, kids' and teen rooms, laundry/craft, two guest rooms, activities room and a games room (5 m × 4 m for a pool table)."
source_location: "Common House — 'SIZE AND DESIGN OF COMMON HOUSE' p.9; Room Schedule pp.10–13"
- claim: "Dwelling mix and size targets: '28—30 units total', 'Ideally 4—5 unit designs.' Best-estimate unit-type schedule (approx size / projected need): Studio flat 30 m² (4 in 1 dwelling); 1-bedroom 50 m² (6); 2-bedroom 1½-bath ground floor 75 m² (4); 2-bedroom 1½-bath 2-storey 80 m² (5); small 3-bedroom 95 m² (11); large 3+ bedroom 125 m² (2) — total 29. Units combined into clusters of '4 - 7 units in a block with party walls' with a diversity of sizes and age groups per cluster."
source_location: "Private Units — 'NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNITS' (schedule table) p.14; 'COMBINATIONS OF UNITS WITHIN CLUSTERS' p.15"
- claim: "Per-unit sustainability specification ('Private House Goals'): every unit 'designed to high standard of environmental sustainability' — 'passive solar, energy efficient, high level of insulation'; 'sustainable, non-toxic materials'; 'buildings that breathe'; 'water-conserving features'; 'solar hot water panels'; 'rainwater and/or greywater plumbing to WC and outside taps as a minimum'; 'high priority to sound-proofing between units'; and 'Ground levels of all units to be designed for access and easy use by those with limited mobility.' Two-bedroom unit design specifies a 'Solar water tank in apex for thermosyphoning.'"
source_location: "Private Units — 'PRIVATE HOUSE GOALS' p.14; Two Bedroom Unit — 'General' p.17"Neobiome Intelligence relevance
The brief is Earthsong’s design intent, not a measured-outcome source, so its NI value is as sizing evidence and as the pre-build baseline for intent-vs-outcome analysis — not as calculation-grade performance or cost data (those live in the verified Earthsong outcome sources).
- Community-buildings sizing → informs RT_327. The budgeted 400 m² common house for 28–30 units is a real design-target data point for the model’s
common_hall_m2_per_hhinput (engine default 20 m²/hh). At 28–30 units it implies ≈ 13–14 m²/hh as an intent figure — which sits below the ~16–20 m²/hh (≈500–640 m²) the OT_098 cost-derivation infers for the as-built centre. So the pair now brackets the input: ~400 m² budget target (low) vs ~500–640 m² as-built (high). ⚠ This is a budget target, not an as-built floor area — the as-built figure needs the site/architect plans (the “Common house plans” drawing from the same Earthsong document collection is held separately as OT_142). - Dwelling-footprint design targets. The unit-type schedule (studio 30 m² → 3+ bed 125 m², mix weighted to small 3-bed 95 m²; total 29 dwellings across 4–5 designs, in 4–7-unit party-wall clusters) is a concrete NZ cohousing dwelling-size distribution — a sizing reference for community dwelling-footprint assumptions, and corroboration of the ~32-dwelling / clustered-terrace form recorded on the case.
- The intent baseline for measured Earthsong outcomes. The brief is the “target” the measured sources are read against: water — a rainwater-collection standard and on-site greywater aim vs the metered ~174 L/p/d and only ~50% on-site rainwater-self-sufficiency (OT_092); waste — an explicit “aim towards zero waste” vs ~1/3 of the Waitakere landfill average (OT_094); energy — “solar water heaters as standard” + “other renewable energy where appropriate” vs the built reality of solar-thermal HW kept and PV dropped at build on cost then later added on carports (Interview VI [INT_006]); materials — “non-toxic, breathing” buildings vs the rammed-earth + untreated-timber as-built spec (OT_093). This documented gap between intent and outcome is the brief’s main analytical value for the model’s ±20% credibility framing.
- Off-grid / self-sufficiency caveat. Earthsong is grid-connected and dense-urban by deliberate choice (Interview VI [INT_006]); the brief’s services targets (rainwater, greywater, compost toilets “if possible”) are urban-eco ambitions, several unrealised (on-site blackwater/compost toilets, full rainwater self-sufficiency). Treat as design ambition at community scale, not achieved off-grid capability — Earthsong remains a grid-connected community-build anchor, not an off-grid case.
Thesis relevance
- A primary artifact of cohousing participatory / consensus design. “A significant cohousing principle is that the project is designed with extensive input from the group. The group spent 4 weekends brainstorming, consensing and compiling this Design Brief in May, June and July of 1999.” The brief documents, in the group’s own prioritised words, how a NZ intentional community encodes “the highest practical standards of sustainable human settlement” into a design instrument — a concrete example for the thesis’s cohousing / participatory-design thread, complementing the governance instruments (Cohousing Agreement, Trust Deed) and the Interviewee account (Interview VI [INT_006]).
- The community’s articulated self-sufficiency vision. The permaculture-based vision — “a model of a socially and environmentally sustainable community”, “To grow some food on site”, “aim towards zero waste”, green-first services — records Earthsong’s original self-sufficiency framing at founding. Read against an interviewee’s view that Earthsong was “never intended as a closed self-sufficient community” and that self-sufficiency is “necessary but insufficient” (Interview V [INT_005]), it grounds the thesis’s intent-vs-practice analysis of what community self-sufficiency meant to those building it.
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- None new. The companion Earthsong design/architecture documents that would carry as-built figures (common-house and unit plans, site plan) come from the same Earthsong document collection and are held as their own separate sources, so no retrieval target is raised for them.
Research gaps
- Informs (does not resolve) RT_327 — NI community-buildings footprints (
*_m2_per_hh, #12). This brief supplies the design-target common-house area (400 m² budgeted for 28–30 units ≈ 13–14 m²/hh), the low anchor beside the OT_098 cost-derived ~500–640 m² as-built (~16–20 m²/hh). RT_327 stays open: it wants the actual as-built floor area (from the site/architect plans), not a budget target.
Notes
Primary design-intent document — the actual 1999 resident-consensus Design Brief of the Waitakere Eco-Neighbourhood Cohousing Project (later Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood), read verbatim via pdftotext -layout. 19 pp: vision statement + three sections (Site pp.1–7, Common House pp.8–13, Private Units pp.14–19), ending “END ☺”. data_quality: high (not verified): a single authoritative primary read once — some targets are corroborated by the Earthsong outcome sources, but the 400 m² common-house budget and the unit schedule are unique to this document, and the brief records intent rather than measured fact.
⚠ Design intent ≠ built outcome. Every figure here is a 1999 aspirational target. Several were scaled back or dropped at build: on-site blackwater treatment / compost toilets (Watercare refused on-site wastewater consent — INT_006), full rainwater self-sufficiency (land-limited tank volume; only ~50% of needs met on-site — OT_092), and PV (dropped at build on cost; solar-thermal HW installed instead, cables pre-run for later PV — INT_006/OT_093). The verified as-built numbers live in OT_092 / OT_093 / OT_094 / OT_098 and the interviews Interview V [INT_005] / Interview VI [INT_006] — this page is the design-intent counterpart, not a replacement.
Connections
Links to
Referenced by
Sources (1): OT_240
Cases (1): Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood